Soft power is one of the most powerful ways for countries to achieve what they want without using force. Over the past several decades, American soft power has played an important role in projecting American popular culture, values, and traditions around the world through multinational companies, Hollywood movies, education, and technology. In this article, I am going to examine how the gap between what a country says and what it does affects trust in its Public Diplomacy. Countries communicate their values and ideas, but their messages do not always persuade foreign audiences.
Why Trust Matters in Public Diplomacy
Trust in Public Diplomacy is very important, as we have seen throughout history. For example, Turkey did not allow American troops to move through its territory to conduct military operations in Iraq. The American invasion of Iraq also did not produce the outcomes America wanted. It weakened American soft power and created a difficult environment for American policies. Many countries have become democracies, so even leaders who are friendly toward other countries have to rely on public support for the policies and decisions they make. China, America, and Russia are militarily powerful countries, but what also matters is what people in other countries think about them. In simple terms, it depends on how strong their soft power is in other countries and what foreign leaders and parliaments think about their role (Nye, 2004, pp. 105-110)
in addition, governments around the world compete with one another in the media, education, NGOs, and scientific fields. In the information and technological age, every country competes to promote its own story. In the end, what matters is whose story wins.
The Shape of Public Diplomacy
When we talk about Public Diplomacy, we usually think about how a country presents its best image to the world. But in my view, that is only one side of it. We also need to look at how people in other countries understand that country’s actions. Britain in the 1990s is a good example. The British Council presented Britain as modern, multicultural, and creative. At the same time, the British Tourist Authority focused more on its history and traditions. They both represented Britain, but the images they presented were not exactly the same. Then, in 2003, Britain supported the United States in the Iraq War. According to Nye, some people abroad felt that Britain was simply following American policy, and this harmed its reputation. This example helps us understand that people do not always separate culture from politics. A country may try to present itself as modern and creative, but that image becomes less convincing when its political actions give people a different impression (Nye, 2004, pp. 138–140).
Governments sometimes think that they can fix a bad image simply by explaining their policies more clearly or promoting themselves more strongly. I do not think it is that simple. People look at what a country does, not only at what it says. If a government talks about certain values but does not follow those values in its actions, people may find it difficult to trust its message. We can see this in the debate about the Iraq War in 2003. Some American critics believed that the government had not explained its policy properly. However, Nye’s discussion makes me think that the policy itself was also a major reason for the opposition. Even if the government had explained it better, many people would probably still have disagreed because they opposed the action itself. They were not only unhappy with the way it was presented. For me, this means that Public Diplomacy is not just about creating a good image. A government also needs to think about whether its decisions are building trust among people abroad or gradually damaging it (Nye, 2004, p. 140).
Public Diplomacy is not only about promoting a country's positive image but also about building trust. As Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War shows, political actions can strongly influence how foreign audiences view a country. In my view, words and cultural promotion alone are not enough because people judge governments by their actions. Therefore, a country’s message must match its actions if it wants to maintain credibility abroad.
References
Ruth, M. (2022). Public Diplomacy. EBSCO Research Starters.